In a laboratory in the upper recesses of the American Museum of Natural History, away from the public galleries, Dr. Ian Tattersall, a tall Homo sapiens, stooped and came face to face with a Neanderthal man, short and robust but bearing a family resemblance  until one looked especially closely.

A paleoanthropologist who has studied and written about Neanderthals, Dr. Tattersall was getting his first look at a virtually complete skeleton from this famously extinct branch of the hominid family. Nothing quite like it has ever been assembled before, the foot bones connected to the ankle bones and everything else up to the cranium.

It is, the museum says, the first composite reconstruction of a full Neanderthal skeleton based on actual fossils.

Dr. Tattersall's initial reaction was visceral, then more analytical. "For the first time, I really feel I have met a Neanderthal," he said. "He was so much like us, but actually quite different."

Examining the upright skeleton, Dr. Tattersall disputed the notion, once current even among some scientists, that Neanderthals may have been so humanlike that if dressed in contemporary clothing, they could have passed unrecognized on the subway. This impression has been characterized in popular cartoon figures of a heavy-browed Neanderthal in a jaunty fedora.

"This definitely is its own species," Dr. Tattersall affirmed, glancing first to the Neanderthal and then to a modern human skeleton next to it. "If people didn't believe that before, by all rights they should now."

Standing 5 feet 4 1/2 inches, thought to be a typical height of a Neanderthal man, the skeleton will be on display at the museum, in New York City, in an exhibit opening on Jan. 11. Showmanship as well as science was behind the skeleton's creation.

These prehistoric people, who lived mostly in Europe and parts of central and southwestern Asia, vanished about 30,000 years ago. Since the first of their fossils were recognized in 1856, Neanderthals have been objects of mystery and endless conjecture. They are, in many respects, the dinosaurs of hominid studies.

Like the fate of the dinosaurs, their extinction has kept scholarly mills grinding out imaginative theories. Similarly, popular culture often treats Neanderthals as the personification of obsolescence. They are the brutes of caveman caricature (sometimes, anachronistically, sharing the turf with hulking dinosaurs).

They have been maligned as an inferior breed not smart enough to survive, even though Neanderthals apparently managed well in challenging climates for more than 200,000 years  longer than the 125,000 to 150,000 years modern Homo sapiens have been around so far.

One reason for the misunderstanding is that not a single remotely complete skeleton of a Neanderthal has turned up. The many artistic recreations, though commonplace and more lifelike than skeletons, invite scientific criticism as being projections of particular interpretations of Neanderthal appearances and behavior. A less subjective study, scientists say, starts with anatomy  with the skeleton.

Dr. Erik Trinkaus, a Neanderthal specialist at Washington University in St. Louis, who was not involved in the project, said the skeleton reconstructions were especially important for computer models of Neanderthal biomechanics, the way they stood, walked and ran.

So technicians at the museum, working with the skill and patience of reconstructive surgeons, assembled a full skeleton from the exact casts of fossil parts from several specimensfound in Europe and the Middle East.

"The whole skeleton is in essence a transplant," said Gary Sawyer, a senior technician in anthropology, who directed the reconstruction.

Mr. Sawyer and other technicians began developing their skills several years ago with the reconstruction of Peking Man, a Homo erectus from China. Their goal is to recreate skeletons of about 20 hominid species.

Last summer, they finished a prototype Neanderthal skeleton and have since added more body parts for the new version. With so much work and thought invested in their creation, they now wish they could give it an appropriate sobriquet. Any suggestions?

Up to 90 percent of the amalgamated skeleton is made from polyurethane replicas based on actual fossils. These are stained a yellowish brown, the color of most excavated fossils. A few parts, particularly cartilage associated with the rib cage, are inferred by context. All such parts are colored gray.

"This was not the easiest thing to do," Mr. Sawyer said. "There were not an awful lot of parts of Neanderthals available to us."

The museum borrowed fossil casts from several institutions. The ribs, spine and some pelvic bones, among other parts, were derived from a 60,000-year-old Neanderthal found at Kebara cave in Israel.

Anatomically modern humans may have seen their first Neanderthals in what is now Israel some 90,000 years ago. They occupied the same region from time to time, and it is tempting to imagine their shock of recognition. Like long-separated cousins, they probably searched each other's faces and physiques for contours of their shared ancestry.

The two surviving groups of the hominid family came in more frequent contact in Europe, beginning 40,000 years ago. Each made stone tools, used fire and had equally large brains. But the Neanderthals, longtime Europeans, were robust with heavy brow ridges and forward-projecting faces. The modern humans, presumably migrants from Africa, were taller and lighter-boned with smaller, less protruding faces. Still, there was a family resemblance.

The museum technicians drew on fossils from the site in La Ferrassie in France for much of the rest of the skeleton, notably the skull. Some leg and arm bones and pelvic parts were created from the original specimen, discovered in a limestone quarry in the Neander Valley of Germany.

The Neanderthals apparently made their last stand in the Iberian peninsula less than 30,000 years ago. The causes of their extinction are still debated. Did modern humans outcompete them for resources? Kill them in combat? Breed with them, so that some of their genes lived on, as they were replaced as a recognizably separate people?

Looking at the reconstructed skeleton, Dr. Tattersall said it was clearer than ever that Neanderthals were not a human subspecies but a separate hominid species, Homo neanderthalensis, a view held by many paleontologists. Dr. Tattersall is the author, with Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz of the University of Pittsburgh, of "Extinct Humans." (Westview Press, 2000).

Dr. Tattersall's eye ran over the anatomical differences. The Neanderthal's shoulders are wider than a human's. The pelvis is also wider, even in males. Some scientists once suspected that the wide pelvis enabled Neanderthals to carry a child longer than nine months, giving birth to larger, more developed infants. But that view is now doubted.

The Neanderthal has shorter forearms and shins, a broader trunk and virtually no waist. The rib cage is a pronounced difference; instead of tapering off, as in humans, it is large and more bell-shaped. And there is the heavy brow ridge, sloping forehead and forward-projecting face.

Attached at the skeleton's neck is a small hyoid bone, which would have anchored the muscles of the tongue and other parts of a voice box apparatus. Found at Kebara cave, this hyoid is a slightly enlarged version of the human hyoid and nothing like similar bones in apes. Some scientists see this as evidence that Neanderthals may have had some capacity for articulate speech.

Dr. Tattersall is skeptical. He thinks Neanderthals had "an essentially symbol-free culture," meaning that they probably lacked the cognitive ability to reduce the world around them to symbols expressed in words and art. In contrast, the Cro-Magnons, as their contemporary modern humans in Europe are called, were creating dazzling art on their cave walls, evidence of a major advance in abstract thought and presumably articulate speech.

Dr. Trinkaus of St. Louis insists that the behavioral attributes of Neanderthals are an open question. They were clearly different anatomically from modern humans, he said, but "the unresolved issue is how important are those differences in Neanderthal behavior  how elaborate was their language or their social systems, what do the differences mean." (Dr. Trinkaus wrote "The Neandertals" (Knopf, 1993) in collaboration with Dr. Pat Shipman, now affiliated with Pennsylvania State University.)

However much Neanderthals and modern humans differed, Dr. Tattersall said: "What Neanderthals did, how they managed in extreme environments, they did very well. It was only Homo sapiens, it seems, that they couldn't cope with."

The Neanderthal skeleton will be part of "The First Europeans: Treasures From the Hills of Atapuerca," an exhibit of recent hominid fossil and artifact finds in northern Spain. These include material of Neanderthal ancestors dating back 800,000 years. The show was organized by Spanish scientists, with Dr. Tattersall as a co-curator.

Writing in the current issue of the magazine Natural History, one organizer, Dr. Juan Luis Arsuaga of the Complutense University in Madrid, said that reconstructions of hominids much more primitive than Neanderthals often seemed less startling, perhaps because they look something like living chimpanzees.

"But there is no familiar equivalent to the Neanderthal, so similar to us, so human yet so different," Dr. Arsuaga wrote. "To come across a Neanderthal, even a reconstructed one, is a thrilling experience. It was no doubt even more thrilling to our ancestors, who met them in the flesh."

Well, I feel vindicated now:.....Dr. Tattersall disputed the notion, once current even among some scientists, that Neanderthals may have been so humanlike that if dressed in contemporary clothing, they could have passed unrecognized on the subway......

At least the phrase "Knuckle-draggin' neanderthal" might still be accurate for use as an analogy !!

Standing 5 feet 4 1/2 inches, thought to be a typical height of a Neanderthal man, the skeleton will be on display at the museum, in New York City, in an exhibit opening on Jan. 11.

One major error was to show it compared to modern (and by historic standards) gigantic man. The average French male from the 17th century was 5 feet 2 inches and weighed scarcely over 100 pounds. Cro magnon folks living under hunting/gathering conditions back in the days when Neanderthals still lived were not likely to have been much larger than their 17th century descendents. Also, the Neaderthal had a much larger brain than modern man. So, so much for the size argument.

As far as the brain goes, the Neanders had more cerebellum to control the muscle mass--not frontal lobage. That gave them a large braincase. They were likely pretty dumb.

Come on, you should know from comparative anatomy that your argument for greater room for the cerebellum is invalid since much much larger and more active animals than man had extremely tiny brains compared to body size. Besides, degree of innervation in muscle mass is a function of muscle use, not of cerebellum size.

This is interesting, but not hardly surprising. Because, today's humans come in all shapes and sizes. What we call today as a physiological "normal" is no more then an "average" found in a community of "healthy" people aged 20 to 40 years old.

There is nothing really inconsistent in this reconstructed Neanderthal that has not been seen often on x-rays at any major medical institution. So, either we still have these Neanderthals walking the streets today, or some of us have a lot of Neanderthal in our blood.

Off hand, I'd say that ol' Neandy could have had one whopping big colon in there.

But the rib cage isn't protecting the intenstines, but mainly the lungs, heart, spleen, stomach and most of the liver.

I have read that their bone mass was denser. Maybe their lung mass was larger to compensate for all the extra weight. All in all a less efficient model. Didn't work as well as the competition and evolution is a tough task master.

But, be careful where you point fingers now. This stuff can get really, really touchy real quick. And, much of what some of us would think on first glance ain't exactly true. That is part of why there are no published papers on the issue.

In truth, some physiologists cannot help but see physical differences in races and sub-races of people. In one instance, I can almost always tell the "race" (country of origin) of three different types of people simply by their heart catherization (of which I have seen hundreds) film. The point is, different people are different.

Yet, in the scheme of things, they are still "Us." Some of "us," however, have greatly different aggravation levels than others of us. The above article hints to some of that. We see other problems domestically.

One major error was to show it compared to modern (and by historic standards) gigantic man. The average French male from the 17th century was 5 feet 2 inches and weighed scarcely over 100 pounds.

Yet another way in which the French were inferior - I don't think that's necessarily a very good example of the historical size of H. sapiens. By way of a counterexample, the minimum height requirement for the Roman army - during the time they were stomping all over the Frenchman's inferior ancestors, no less - was 5'5" for the infantry, and 5'10" for cavalrymen. And they never had much trouble filling their ranks by the tens of thousands, suggesting that even if 5'5" was somewhat taller than average, it was hardly three standard deviations away from the mean, if you follow me.

Plus, if you assume human growth rates for the Turkana specimen, which is generally believed to have been about 11-12 years old, and around 5'3" at death, you wind up with an adult height in the neighborhood of 6'1". Which may or may not have been exceptionally tall for H. erectus, but when life is a competition, having a few exceptional individuals on your team can sometimes make a significant difference...

This is what the Times does better than anyone else. They are finally admitting that the most likely thing that doomed these squat hominids were our ancestors.

And it likely was not very pretty.

Actually, it may have been rather unremarkable.

I read a statistical observation by someone, who pointed out that if every time two populations encounter each other, one of them incurs a decrease in population relative to the other, it can be statistically proven (given equal reproductive rates on the part of the two species) that one of them will eventually become extinct. (It does seem sort of intuitively obvious...).

The point was that it would not have required open warfare and genocide by the Cro-Mags (damn good band, btw) of the Neanderthals - just one more dead Neanderthal per normalized time period than dead Cro-Mags, overall - a good maxim to keep in mind today, when pursuing the global extermination of Islam...

Nope...don't buy the non-violent end to the Neanders for one reason: the rapidity of their disappearance from the Euro scene. They were there one minute and gone the next. Your gene-swapping theory could work if the timing were MUCH slower...

Old wisdom has it that since Neanderthals lived in ice-age climates, they needed more lung capacity (and nasal capacity)to take in more air than H. Sapiens. There must be references in the literature somewhere which discusses this.

One thing you won't read in science journals, is the problem these recent studies of neanderthals create for evolution and evolutionists.

Recent studies of neanderthal DNA turned up the result that neanderthal DNA is "about halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee", and that there is no way we could interbreed with them or be descended from them via any process resembling evolution. That says that anybody wishing to believe that modern man evolved has to come up with some closer hominid, i.e. a plausible ancestor for modern man, and that the closer hominid would stand closer to us in both time and morphology than the neanderthal, and that his works and remains should be very easy to find, since neanderthal remains and works are all over the map. Of course, no such closer hominid exists; all other hominids are much further from us than the neanderthal.

An evolutionist could try to claim that we and the neanderthal both are descended from some more remote ancestor 200,000 years ago, but that would be like claiming that dogs couldn't be descended from wolves, and must therefore be descended from fish, i.e. the claim would be idiotic.

That leaves three possibilities: modern man was created from scratch very recently, was genetically re-engineered from the neanderthal, or was imported from elsewhere in the cosmos.

The idea of modern man evolving is not tenable.

Neanderthals used to be drawn and painted as ape-men. More recent scientific reconstructions show them to be closely related to us, but definitely another species as opposed to another race:

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.